Just how many people hate Windows 8?

[veternan]

I Hate Windows 8, Damn you MS  :angry:

[PGHammer]

Making stuff up out of the blue does not help prove yer point. I don't know anyone, nor have I heard of anyone...outside of the tiny "pro-metro set" claim that the start menu was in any way broken.

 

I wasn't trying to make any "compelling" case for anything... I don't need to. I like what I like, as do multitudes of others... and none of us need to make any case, compelling or otherwise.

That is as an emotional an argument as one that has been constantly used in obscenity trials - "I can't define what is obscene - all I know is that I know it when I see it."

 

If you want to add OR remove a feature (and you are, in fact, asking that a feature be removed), you have to have a compelling case for its removal.

 

If anything, I am anti-Start menu - not necessarily pro-ModernUI, for the simple-to-explain reason that a non-searchable Start menu is very much broken.

 

One point the StartScreen has in its favor is that it is tied directly into Index Server - which has been a part of Windows of all forms since Windows 2000.  (The Start menu never connected to Index Server - not in any version of Windows, even via a third-party utility. That means you have to take time out of your workday fiddling with groups and otherwise ordering the Start menu.  It's scutwork/busywork - and I very much LOATHE needing to do so - isn't that somethhing that including Index Server was SUPPOSED to eventually SOLVE?  Apparently, Microsoft couldn't get the Start menu and Index Server to mesh at all - which is why it got its chop called in Windows 8 and Server 2012.)  The StartScreen is searchable - and right from the keyboard.  I need do nothing - no matter HOW many applications, games, etc. I add - now OR later.

[Rickkins]

~snip~

 

If anything, I am anti-Start menu - not necessarily pro-ModernUI, for the simple-to-explain reason that a non-searchable Start menu is very much broken.

 

One point the StartScreen has in its favor is that it is tied directly into Index Server - which has been a part of Windows of all forms since Windows 2000.  (The Start menu never connected to Index Server - not in any version of Windows, even via a third-party utility. That means you have to take time out of your workday fiddling with groups and otherwise ordering the Start menu.  It's scutwork/busywork - and I very much LOATHE needing to do so - isn't that somethhing that including Index Server was SUPPOSED to eventually SOLVE?  Apparently, Microsoft couldn't get the Start menu and Index Server to mesh at all - which is why it got its chop called in Windows 8 and Server 2012.)  The StartScreen is searchable - and right from the keyboard.  I need do nothing - no matter HOW many applications, games, etc. I add - now OR later.

Search.... I so very rarely it, except to find an obscure file. For the most part, I know exactly where every damn thing is. I should point out, before hand, that is, that my desktop is 9 terabytes....

 

But this is missing the point, intentionally I believe.

The central point is, tifkam is absolutely horrendous and has no redeeming features, and was created with the sole purpose of squeezing every last cent possible out of the consumer. That, and of course trying to take on Apple & Android. And it fails right across the board. And NOTHING you or anyone else says is going to alter that opinion, ever. So... if your only goal can be to get the last word...  keep going. But all the posting won't change my mind...how could it..?? No one is fooled. No one is having their minds changed. Quite simply, we know better.

 

 

[Fourjays Veteran]

Windows 8 to me is very flawed. Not because the start menu is gone, nor because the power options have been moved to an obscure place. But because of the way in which  a number of - originally great - concepts have been implemented. This is going to be a long post and a bit like an article as I feel I need to explain a lot to make my point.
 
My Experience
I'll start by saying when Windows 8 was first announced I was very excited. Finally Microsoft was going to take Windows to the next level, bring it into the modern era of computing. As the previews came out I became more and more disappointed. Maybe my expectations were a bit high, but it wasn't what I felt a modern Windows could have been. Despite this, I decided to give Windows 8 a go when I got a free upgrade to it with my very first smartphone (HTC 8x) just before Christmas. The first thing that struck me was the lack of any productivity apps. But I stuck with it, using 8's split personality to my advantage - desktop for work, Start Screen for entertainment. I even created my very first game using WinJS and released it in the store.
 
For four months I used it like that and early on I was close to loving it and thinking I had been wrong about it. But I wasn't. From about two months ago, I have been slowly drifting from the Start Screen to the desktop for everything. The apps are mediocre at best compared to their desktop or website equivalents, and the many little oddities in Windows 8 slowly began to grind me down. The Start Screen is now, for me, nothing more than a poor version of the start menu, suffering the same problems as the start menu did plus some new ones, and offering little in return. I have quite a few tiles on it still - mostly Steam games on there to stop it looking empty - but I only use a couple regularly.
 
I feel justified in saying that I have given Windows 8 a fair shot.
 
Why Metro should be awesome...
A lot of the reason why I was looking forward to Windows 8 was the original Metro UI concepts (good article on those here with a comparison to WP7) that Microsoft were putting out long before Windows 8 was announced. Ok, they're concepts that will never see the light of day in their entirety, just like concept cars. But the interfaces looked beautiful, functioned brilliantly and would, as far as I was concerned, signal the start of a new era of Windows computing.
 
As a web designer, I quickly recognised in the guiding principles many concepts that have been a familiar part of web design since the "Web 2.0" movement. Clean design, good focus on typography, good use of whitespace, colours and font sizes, and a focus on the purpose and functionality. Everything a good UI should have then.
 
Problem #1 - Metro/Modern UI
Metro isn't awesome. At least not in Windows 8. Windows Phone has its own issues regards sticking to the original Metro principles, but for the most part gets away with it as apps remain both beautiful and usable. In Windows 8 this is not the case. Most apps feel shallow and weak.
 
In Windows 8, Microsoft seems to have become a little too hung up on the "style" of Metro, rather than the principles guiding it. Every app I've tried in Windows 8 feels utilitarian and boring, yet somehow manages to be utterly useless when it comes to functionality. This is the main reason why I've drifted back to the desktop. In nearly every case the desktop or website equivalent just works better, and in some cases even looks better. Even some Windows Phone apps function better than those on Windows 8, which is quite an accomplishment for a small screen!
 
The OneNote app is perhaps one of the most telling, however. This is one of the few productivity apps available for Windows 8 (and the only app I still use), yet editing is clunky and cumbersome even compared to the Windows Phone version. I can't even begin to imagine how Office could fit into the current Modern UI if OneNote is anything to go by (and presumably, neither could Microsoft given its absense).
 
Funnily enough, while Microsoft are butchering Metro with Windows 8, desktop apps are beginning to be more Metro than any Modern UI app I have come across. 
 
However this problem is fixable. Whether it happens is another matter. There is a second problem that I feel is a much more fundamental flaw though.
 
Why Windows needed to change...
Windows did need to change. Sticking with the same old operating system wasn't going to fly for Microsoft any more. While PCs will always be around (if you believe tablets can entirely replace them you are frankly delusional), the fact remains that the majority of people don't need them. A tablet and/or smartphone can handle most peoples computing needs nowadays, which usually boil down to web browsing, media consumption, social networking and a an occasional letter or email.
 
To remain relevant, Microsoft needed to adapt Windows to the modern world. Adapting however, is where I think they made their mistake.
 
Problem #2 - The Start Screen
The problem with the Start Screen isn't that it replaces the start menu. The start menu was stupid, old and in many ways broken. I would have been perfectly happy if all the start button/Windows key did was pop-up a search box. The problem with the Start Screen though, is that it replaces the start menu. Yea, confusing.
 
To me, they've put the Start Screen in the wrong place and missed a huge trick that is going to hurt badly down the road. Rather than elect to make the the tablet oriented side of Windows entirely separate (like previous Windows for tablets) or included but separate (like media center) they elected to merge it with Windows.
 
Part of the idea behind this was no doubt the hybrid computers (including the Surface) we have seen coming out recently, that can be both a tablet and a laptop. This is a solid idea and is unique in a market currently dominated by Apple and Google. But despite Windows 8 being suited for both, it seems to have missed the mark.
 
In essence, the problem is they still have a separate tablet operating system. The Start Screen and the desktop are still separate entities, barely interacting and with very little cross over. They don't even look like they belong together, with a huge variety of glaring UI inconsistencies and mixed paradigms.
 
Stuck in a Corner
This creates a bigger problem for Microsoft down the road - sooner or later they are going to have to ditch one. I can't see a future in which both the Start Screen and the desktop co-exist for evermore. It simply won't work.
 
The evidence here is again the hybrid computers, which I believe are the future for the majority of people. For the concept of a dual tablet/laptop computer to work, the Modern UI and desktop both need the same software. All this cloud push, syncing across devices and so on, is all for nothing if you don't get a consistent and equally functional experience at all points of the ecosystem.
 
Modern UI could get the apps it needs to be productive, if they fix the first problem. But there are so many pieces of software on the desktop that are utterly necessary for peoples working lives. From Office and Photoshop, to Visual Studio and specialist programs, it would be a truly huge undertaking to replicate more than 20 years of software development in all the business fields out there (and it still depends on Modern UI being capable of it). And these kind of programs can't be done without.
 
I believe by seperating Windows 8 into two entities Microsoft has set themselves up for a big fall later on. Maybe the company has a clear idea of where they are taking this, but unlike Apple they aren't a company I've ever associated with having an ace up their sleeve. If anything, they can be read like a book and at the moment it is titled "this is the best we've got".
 
 
Ok genius, what would you do?
I said before that the problem was Microsoft adapted. Web design, like most technological industries, has had to change to handle the growing mobile and tablet markets. This is achieved via either adaptive web design or responsive web design. From a technical stand point they are the same, but are subtly different. Adaptive web design focuses on creating a design for a predetermined set of screen sizes. Responsive web design on the other hand, focuses on creating a fluidly changing design that is device independent (typically built "mobile-first"). Most designers go with the latter as it is more flexible across a huge array of devices, future proof against new additions and the least likely to exclude older devices.
 
As I said, the problem is they adapted. Instead, Microsoft should have responded. Not just port Windows to tablets as they have done previously, but actually respond to them. Use Windows greatest strength - the existing software - to its advantage in the tablet market. Would it be easy? Hell no. But it has got to be easier than dealing with two competing UIs and/or recreating everything from scratch. Many pieces of Windows software are already close to being responsive due to the ability to resize Windows, they just need a fixed set of UI guidelines and some tweaks.
 
Start by creating a centralised store and packaging system, making it easier for users to discover and update software, and easier for Microsoft to vet software for security. Provide developers with the tools necessary to make desktop software responsive. Force them to use the Metro UI guidelines to make the same software beautiful and touch friendly. The requirement for being published in the store is the software meeting these two points, giving software developers an incentive to make the transition.
 
Bring Windows up to date as a whole. Ditch the start menu and have the start button launch a search mode. Get rid of the system tray and move the messages to some sort of notification center. Get rid of desktop icons and use monochromatic live tiles in the background that can be scaled and scrolled independent of the device. Replace explorer and other core Windows features and apps with touch-friendly, Metro-inspired alternatives. Build a consistent and polished UI experience by finally replacing all of the legacy leftovers, like outdated icons. Phase legacy APIs and features out over time in favour of alternatives such as WinJS.
 
And don't forget to make the Windows UI responsive. In tablet mode? Force all software to fullscreen or into a "snapped" state unless it is designed to be responsive. Remove the Windows UI elements that are unsuitable (like min/max/close) and replace them with tablet friendly elements or gestures. Slightly scale up the taskbar, remove the start button in favour of the hardware touch button (if there is one).
 
The biggest advantage of this? Windows could continue being great at everything it has been, but also great at everything it needs to be in the modern world. Hybrid computing could have been Window's killer feature.
 
Windows 8 is :-(
As it is though, Windows 8 is sad, sorry and disappointing. It feels so much like they missed a trick with Windows 8. The end result seems more like it was designed for Apple and Google, than for me as a user of Windows.
 
Maybe I seem harsh on Microsoft, but it is only because I want them to be great again. Maybe I expect too much, but I'd rather they were truly pushing boundaries instead of coming up with half-baked options long after it was already done really well. Maybe I'm totally wrong and Windows 8.1 will suddenly sell like hotcakes on laptops, tablets and hybrids.
 
I am going to stick with it for now, albeit as little more than Windows 7 with a fullscreen start menu. Although I already know it won't be enough, I'll see what 8.1 brings, if only to see what plans there are post 8.1. But I am very close to giving up on Microsoft entirely and jumping ship. They aren't perfect, but right now Mac and Linux (both of which I've used previously) are looking far more like complete systems to me than the disarray that is Windows 8.

[Dot Matrix]

My Experience

I'll start by saying when Windows 8 was first announced I was very excited. Finally Microsoft was going to take Windows to the next level, bring it into the modern era of computing. As the previews came out I became more and more disappointed. Maybe my expectations were a bit high, but it wasn't what I felt a modern Windows could have been. Despite this, I decided to give Windows 8 a go when I got a free upgrade to it with my very first smartphone (HTC 8x) just before Christmas. The first thing that struck me was the lack of any productivity apps. But I stuck with it, using 8's split personality to my advantage - desktop for work, Start Screen for entertainment. I even created my very first game using WinJS and released it in the store.

 

For four months I used it like that and early on I was close to loving it and thinking I had been wrong about it. But I wasn't. From about two months ago, I have been slowly drifting from the Start Screen to the desktop for everything. The apps are mediocre at best compared to their desktop or website equivalents, and the many little oddities in Windows 8 slowly began to grind me down. The Start Screen is now, for me, nothing more than a poor version of the start menu, suffering the same problems as the start menu did plus some new ones, and offering little in return. I have quite a few tiles on it still - mostly Steam games on there to stop it looking empty - but I only use a couple regularly.

 

I feel justified in saying that I have given Windows 8 a fair shot.

I feel the same way, BUT, apps are getting better, and 8.1 will improve many of the built in apps with better functionality. The Photos app, for example is finally getting many features of Windows Live Photo Gallery. Xbox Music is also getting a refresh. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day. You need somewhere to start, and go from there.

Why Metro should be awesome...

A lot of the reason why I was looking forward to Windows 8 was the original Metro UI concepts (good article on those here with a comparison to WP7) that Microsoft were putting out long before Windows 8 was announced. Ok, they're concepts that will never see the light of day in their entirety, just like concept cars. But the interfaces looked beautiful, functioned brilliantly and would, as far as I was concerned, signal the start of a new era of Windows computing.

 

As a web designer, I quickly recognised in the guiding principles many concepts that have been a familiar part of web design since the "Web 2.0" movement. Clean design, good focus on typography, good use of whitespace, colours and font sizes, and a focus on the purpose and functionality. Everything a good UI should have then.

Personally, I still feel many of these concepts will appear at a later date as the Modern UI/UX improves.

Problem #1 - Metro/Modern UI

Metro isn't awesome. At least not in Windows 8. Windows Phone has its own issues regards sticking to the original Metro principles, but for the most part gets away with it as apps remain both beautiful and usable. In Windows 8 this is not the case. Most apps feel shallow and weak.

 

In Windows 8, Microsoft seems to have become a little too hung up on the "style" of Metro, rather than the principles guiding it. Every app I've tried in Windows 8 feels utilitarian and boring, yet somehow manages to be utterly useless when it comes to functionality. This is the main reason why I've drifted back to the desktop. In nearly every case the desktop or website equivalent just works better, and in some cases even looks better. Even some Windows Phone apps function better than those on Windows 8, which is quite an accomplishment for a small screen!

 

The OneNote app is perhaps one of the most telling, however. This is one of the few productivity apps available for Windows 8 (and the only app I still use), yet editing is clunky and cumbersome even compared to the Windows Phone version. I can't even begin to imagine how Office could fit into the current Modern UI if OneNote is anything to go by (and presumably, neither could Microsoft given its absense).

 

Funnily enough, while Microsoft are butchering Metro with Windows 8, desktop apps are beginning to be more Metro than any Modern UI app I have come across. 

 

However this problem is fixable. Whether it happens is another matter. There is a second problem that I feel is a much more fundamental flaw though.

Of course it will be fixed. Look at where apps are today compared to RTM, many I use have been updated quite regularly since Windows 8 was released, and will be updated again as time goes on. I'm curious though, how is OneNote clucky? Personally, I love the radial menu system it uses, something I wish the rest of the OS used.

Why Windows needed to change...

Windows did need to change. Sticking with the same old operating system wasn't going to fly for Microsoft any more. While PCs will always be around (if you believe tablets can entirely replace them you are frankly delusional), the fact remains that the majority of people don't need them. A tablet and/or smartphone can handle most peoples computing needs nowadays, which usually boil down to web browsing, media consumption, social networking and a an occasional letter or email.

 

To remain relevant, Microsoft needed to adapt Windows to the modern world. Adapting however, is where I think they made their mistake.

This is where you and I agree, the windows of old was unsustainable, and had things remained the same, Microsoft would have been in for a world of hurt.

Problem #2 - The Start Screen

The problem with the Start Screen isn't that it replaces the start menu. The start menu was stupid, old and in many ways broken. I would have been perfectly happy if all the start button/Windows key did was pop-up a search box. The problem with the Start Screen though, is that it replaces the start menu. Yea, confusing.

 

To me, they've put the Start Screen in the wrong place and missed a huge trick that is going to hurt badly down the road. Rather than elect to make the the tablet oriented side of Windows entirely separate (like previous Windows for tablets) or included but separate (like media center) they elected to merge it with Windows.

 

Part of the idea behind this was no doubt the hybrid computers (including the Surface) we have seen coming out recently, that can be both a tablet and a laptop. This is a solid idea and is unique in a market currently dominated by Apple and Google. But despite Windows 8 being suited for both, it seems to have missed the mark.

 

In essence, the problem is they still have a separate tablet operating system. The Start Screen and the desktop are still separate entities, barely interacting and with very little cross over. They don't even look like they belong together, with a huge variety of glaring UI inconsistencies and mixed paradigms.

We disagree here, personally, I like that the Start Screen replaces the Start Menu. I'm a fan of how it looks, how it displays all my information via the tiles, and how it makes my PCs feel alive. It's something PCs have been missing forever. To me the Start Screen is a separate entity from both the desktop and Metro apps. Whether or not you use those is up to you, but even for desktop users, the Start Screen just feels and works so much better than the menu, and in 8.1 will work even better. The problem with the desktop, though, is that it is largely legacy. It contains much outdated code, and worse, you can't introduce a large change to it without potentially breaking things, and aggravating users. So, instead of replacing the old, Microsoft opted to remove the old bit by bit, the Start Menu being the first casualty. It allows users to still use the desktop, while being introduced to the Modern side of the OS.

 

Stuck in a Corner

This creates a bigger problem for Microsoft down the road - sooner or later they are going to have to ditch one. I can't see a future in which both the Start Screen and the desktop co-exist for evermore. It simply won't work.

 

The evidence here is again the hybrid computers, which I believe are the future for the majority of people. For the concept of a dual tablet/laptop computer to work, the Modern UI and desktop both need the same software. All this cloud push, syncing across devices and so on, is all for nothing if you don't get a consistent and equally functional experience at all points of the ecosystem.

 

Modern UI could get the apps it needs to be productive, if they fix the first problem. But there are so many pieces of software on the desktop that are utterly necessary for peoples working lives. From Office and Photoshop, to Visual Studio and specialist programs, it would be a truly huge undertaking to replicate more than 20 years of software development in all the business fields out there (and it still depends on Modern UI being capable of it). And these kind of programs can't be done without.

 

I believe by seperating Windows 8 into two entities Microsoft has set themselves up for a big fall later on. Maybe the company has a clear idea of where they are taking this, but unlike Apple they aren't a company I've ever associated with having an ace up their sleeve. If anything, they can be read like a book and at the moment it is titled "this is the best we've got".

Of course, over time one environment will be ditched. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out which one. 10 years from now, our computers will be wholly different from what we have now, and I can guarantee the desktop environment will work less and less with these new devices. In that time the Modern UI will undoubtedly mature to fill in the void left by the gradual removal of desktop components. For now, it's still there, ready to be used. Windows 8 is very much a transition OS, it shouldn't be shocking to still see a mix of new and old.

 

Ok genius, what would you do?

I said before that the problem was Microsoft adapted. Web design, like most technological industries, has had to change to handle the growing mobile and tablet markets. This is achieved via either adaptive web design or responsive web design. From a technical stand point they are the same, but are subtly different. Adaptive web design focuses on creating a design for a predetermined set of screen sizes. Responsive web design on the other hand, focuses on creating a fluidly changing design that is device independent (typically built "mobile-first"). Most designers go with the latter as it is more flexible across a huge array of devices, future proof against new additions and the least likely to exclude older devices.

 

As I said, the problem is they adapted. Instead, Microsoft should have responded. Not just port Windows to tablets as they have done previously, but actually respond to them. Use Windows greatest strength - the existing software - to its advantage in the tablet market. Would it be easy? Hell no. But it has got to be easier than dealing with two competing UIs and/or recreating everything from scratch. Many pieces of Windows software are already close to being responsive due to the ability to resize Windows, they just need a fixed set of UI guidelines and some tweaks.

 

Start by creating a centralised store and packaging system, making it easier for users to discover and update software, and easier for Microsoft to vet software for security. Provide developers with the tools necessary to make desktop software responsive. Force them to use the Metro UI guidelines to make the same software beautiful and touch friendly. The requirement for being published in the store is the software meeting these two points, giving software developers an incentive to make the transition.

 

Bring Windows up to date as a whole. Ditch the start menu and have the start button launch a search mode. Get rid of the system tray and move the messages to some sort of notification center. Get rid of desktop icons and use monochromatic live tiles in the background that can be scaled and scrolled independent of the device. Replace explorer and other core Windows features and apps with touch-friendly, Metro-inspired alternatives. Build a consistent and polished UI experience by finally replacing all of the legacy leftovers, like outdated icons. Phase legacy APIs and features out over time in favour of alternatives such as WinJS.

 

And don't forget to make the Windows UI responsive. In tablet mode? Force all software to fullscreen or into a "snapped" state unless it is designed to be responsive. Remove the Windows UI elements that are unsuitable (like min/max/close) and replace them with tablet friendly elements or gestures. Slightly scale up the taskbar, remove the start button in favour of the hardware touch button (if there is one).

 

The biggest advantage of this? Windows could continue being great at everything it has been, but also great at everything it needs to be in the modern world. Hybrid computing could have been Window's killer feature.

If I understand you correctly, you would have taken Windows, and made it respond to the device to which it is running. Doing that would have taken too much time, and because Windows relies on MANY third party apps, would never have been fully realized.

Also, you still have the largely legacy baggage following along for the ride, and also its weaknesses. The Modern UI isn't just about touch, the code underneath is very much new, refreshed, and locked down. You have apps running in sandboxes, also better utilizing resources. Modern is very much Microsoft starting over, in the best possible manner without being disruptive to users. The construction is just beginning, give it time, and the final product will show itself.

[Growled Member]

Personally, I wish they would do away with the desktop mode. They could do that if would have some sort of bar that displays open apps, so users like me (and most of us) could easily switch between apps. 

[Dot Matrix]

Personally, I wish they would do away with the desktop mode. They could do that if would have some sort of bar that displays open apps, so users like me (and most of us) could easily switch between apps.

I wish they would too. In due time, though...

[PGHammer]

~snip~

Search.... I so very rarely it, except to find an obscure file. For the most part, I know exactly where every damn thing is. I should point out, before hand, that is, that my desktop is 9 terabytes....

 

But this is missing the point, intentionally I believe.

The central point is, tifkam is absolutely horrendous and has no redeeming features, and was created with the sole purpose of squeezing every last cent possible out of the consumer. That, and of course trying to take on Apple & Android. And it fails right across the board. And NOTHING you or anyone else says is going to alter that opinion, ever. So... if your only goal can be to get the last word...  keep going. But all the posting won't change my mind...how could it..?? No one is fooled. No one is having their minds changed. Quite simply, we know better.

 

 

And how many applications (desktop, that is) do you have installed?

 

Between application suites, games (some of which are so packed with shortcuts they are almost mini-suites in themselves), and various utilities, the Start menu can get very unwieldy - especially when you get around the fifty-application mark or larger. Servers, if anything, are worse.  If you have to rely on the Mark I Mod 0 human eyeball exclusively, then, I hate to tell you, the paradigm is seriously broken - especially since that is something that the inclusion of Index Server (now the Indexing service) was supposed to, at some point, FIX the problem.  It is something that I have had to deal with since Windows 9x, and the ONLY real solutions that work are either the Windows 8 StartScreen or similar screens in Android and iOS.

 

It sounds, at least to me, that you are such a creature of HABIT that you are perfectly willing to work around the problem incessantly, instead of actually facing it head-on.   (Yes - I specifically mentioned Android - specifically an ASUS Transformer PRIME 1.0 updated to 4.0.3 (Ice Cream Sandwich -not Jellybean).  Nested screens (which is also used in iOS) is basically a cross between the StartScreen and the Android 3.x paradigm - and it works.)

 

If you are that entrenched, say so - don't sit there and try to blow smoke up my posterior and say otherwise.

[xWhiplash]

I have no idea why so many people seem like they are begging for the desktop interface to be eliminated.  Why?  WHat do you suggest I use to run my games, Adobe CS4 through Creative Cloud versions?

[Growled Member]

I have no idea why so many people seem like they are begging for the desktop interface to be eliminated.  Why?  WHat do you suggest I use to run my games, Adobe CS4 through Creative Cloud versions?

If Microsoft would design it properly, the Modern interface could supplant the desktop and run all of that. If not that, just hide the desktop mode but allow apps that need it to run. 

[Dashel]

Oh sweet Jesus, not the Win2000 Index Server BS again...

 

Good post Fourjays, I agree with most of your points.

[Fourjays Veteran]

I feel the same way, BUT, apps are getting better, and 8.1 will improve many of the built in apps with better functionality. The Photos app, for example is finally getting many features of Windows Live Photo Gallery. Xbox Music is also getting a refresh. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day. You need somewhere to start, and go from there.

True, but the far more worrying aspect is the total lack of productivity apps. If Modern UI is the future and will replace the desktop, Microsoft need to prove it and prove it quickly. Even the latest Mail app is weak compared to using Outlook.com or Gmail (I believe a newer version is in 8.1 so this may improve).

I'm curious though, how is OneNote clucky? Personally, I love the radial menu system it uses, something I wish the rest of the OS used.

Try doing any text formatting where you are doing a lot of switching back and forth. A while back I was using it to note down commands I needed to remember for my VPS. I denoted them with varying amounts of bold, italics and colours to make them clear. Going bold > italics > red > yellow > etc is painfully slow. The radial menu would make more sense on Windows Phone (although the current method is almost quicker), but with the amount of real estate available I don't know why they aren't more prominently available in Windows 8. It is a key problem in nearly all of the apps, both Microsoft and third party.

Whether or not you use those is up to you, but even for desktop users, the Start Screen just feels and works so much better than the menu, and in 8.1 will work even better.

Live tiles aside, there isn't any difference to me. Suffers the same issues.

 

 

If I understand you correctly, you would have taken Windows, and made it respond to the device to which it is running. Doing that would have taken too much time, and because Windows relies on MANY third party apps, would never have been fully realized.

Also, you still have the largely legacy baggage following along for the ride, and also its weaknesses. The Modern UI isn't just about touch, the code underneath is very much new, refreshed, and locked down. You have apps running in sandboxes, also better utilizing resources. Modern is very much Microsoft starting over, in the best possible manner without being disruptive to users. The construction is just beginning, give it time, and the final product will show itself.

Yes. I don't see why it couldn't be realised. Open Microsoft Word and resize it to phone dimensions. Still functions, right? Take any desktop software on Windows and do the same, and in most cases (where a developer doesn't add artificial limits) it will work fine. Windows is already close to being responsive, it has been for years. The only part that isn't already there is the final piece of the puzzle - not just scaling the software down, but altering the experience. So when Microsoft Word is resized down to phone dimensions, it (for example) hides the ribbon and opens the radial menu. I don't see what is so impossible about that compared to having to rewrite and redesign everything for Modern UI. Who wants to tell Adobe they've got to start Photoshop from scratch?

I am aware of the code changes. As a web developer though, one thing I have learned is that nothing is impossible in code if you really want it to happen.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Just had a customer call me about a 2 month old laptop she bought. She said right off the bat "I just got a laptop 2 months ago and it has Windows 8, I hate Windows 8, it SUCKS!"

[Astra.Xtreme]

Just had a customer call me about a 2 month old laptop she bought. She said right off the bat "I just got a laptop 2 months ago and it has Windows 8, I hate Windows 8, it SUCKS!"

 

It's only the beginning.  :devil:

[Rickkins]

And how many applications (desktop, that is) do you have installed?

 

Between application suites, games (some of which are so packed with shortcuts they are almost mini-suites in themselves), and various utilities, the Start menu can get very unwieldy - especially when you get around the fifty-application mark or larger. Servers, if anything, are worse.  If you have to rely on the Mark I Mod 0 human eyeball exclusively, then, I hate to tell you, the paradigm is seriously broken - especially since that is something that the inclusion of Index Server (now the Indexing service) was supposed to, at some point, FIX the problem.  It is something that I have had to deal with since Windows 9x, and the ONLY real solutions that work are either the Windows 8 StartScreen or similar screens in Android and iOS.

 

It sounds, at least to me, that you are such a creature of HABIT that you are perfectly willing to work around the problem incessantly, instead of actually facing it head-on.   (Yes - I specifically mentioned Android - specifically an ASUS Transformer PRIME 1.0 updated to 4.0.3 (Ice Cream Sandwich -not Jellybean).  Nested screens (which is also used in iOS) is basically a cross between the StartScreen and the Android 3.x paradigm - and it works.)

 

If you are that entrenched, say so - don't sit there and try to blow smoke up my posterior and say otherwise.

I have less than 40 apps installed at this time(I have had many more in the past, but I have streamlined...)

 

Thing is, everything is alphabetized.... how can ya possibly go wrong...???

And how can that possibly be considered "broken"...??

 

As long as one can read, and knows the alphabet, one should be ok...

[OilersFan]

If they added these two things, I could be happy with Windows 8:
- The abilitiy to right click the start menu and do a quick search of start menu items, I know there is the windows key + S, but I would like to see something more similar to the Windows 7 start menu search
- An extra option on the right click menu that lists all the start menu items in just plain text.
 

[Rickkins]

One of the things I despise the most, are the "metro apps". Horrible things that are not nearly as good a desktop apps.

 

And yes, I really only did try maybe a dozen or so, but what I did see repulsed me.

 

Also note, that I only ever tried them on the desktop, they may well be great in their native environment(touch).

 

But on the desktop... yuck. And I honestly do not see how anyone can think otherwise...

[Dashel]

If they added these two things, I could be happy with Windows 8:

- The abilitiy to right click the start menu and do a quick search of start menu items, I know there is the windows key + S, but I would like to see something more similar to the Windows 7 start menu search

- An extra option on the right click menu that lists all the start menu items in just plain text.

 

 

You can right click, or use the charm to search - and remain in the Desktop space.

 

All Start Menu Items?  As in the 9x structure?

 

Metro apps are fantastic on RT, but are still a great subset alternative on the desktop.  Just depends on your hardware and what you are looking to do.  You are comparing apples and oranges - compare them to the competition and its a much better picture.

[ColdFlo]

I like Windows 8 because it is superior to Windows 7 in performance and the ergonomic differences are also more relaxing and superior(no aero easier on the eyes no start menu mouse maze big slide screen easy to click easy to search).  The future vs the past is a false paradigm with most of you putting your television derived brainwash perspectives about race into this discussion as evidenced by post no 2.  Look into who owns the media conglomerates and their objectives before you jump to a fools conclusion.  Just because the media giants make you feel like 80s music(think here if your responding to my post because you think im some old 80s fogey your completely missing the point or some fan of the 80s cause im not there is something that changed in music after the 80s) is a long lost era doesnt mean it is.  Music in France still sounds like the 80s when decades are treated like epocs it makes 10 years ago seem like a forgotten age but 10 years is nothing this all makes the mental perspective always striving for the future at an accelerated rate creating an overaccelerated need for change.  So you have to wonder why is all this crap being shoved down societies' throat???????

 

But that debate has nothing to do with Windows 8 because windows 8 is faster has more performance and causes a less stressful computing experience.  Most of you dont like it because you are stuck in a rutters.  You get used to your daily routines and your muscle memory becomes engrained.  You dont practice variety in your life which is holding you back.  Men often buy the same toiletries their entire life this is dumb.  Try new things(no not like how the tv tells you) buy some other shaving creams, try another can of beans, try another diet, try another lifestyle, try some different food, travel do whatever you got to do to experience the most of out life then find out what is truely best and settle on that.  If you use this approach you will always know what is the best.  If you disagree with Windows 8 being the best you are wrong and fool because you are stuck in a rut and dont try new things therefore you dont know what is best.  You have made your mind up before you even gave it a proper try(which is more than installing it for a day or a week not googling how to use it and uninstalling it.), and you also have no eye for performance because I saw it was faster the first time I used it.

[Dashel]

I would remind you ColdFlo about Socrates and fools: since you and most with such incendiary posts have done a universally terrible job demonstrating you understand both sides of the question.

"And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."

 

Less stressful?  Don't practice variety?  Eye for performance because you can 'literally' see it? Ah, Neowin. :D

 

Clearly those that agree that Win8 is 'the best' have never shown themselves to be wrong or foolish.  May I introduce you to Blue?

[Rickkins]

Guess the rules don't apply to some. :|

 

 

If you disagree with Windows 8 being the best you are wrong and fool because you are stuck in a rut and dont try new things therefore you dont know what is best.

[PGHammer]

I have less than 40 apps installed at this time(I have had many more in the past, but I have streamlined...)

 

Thing is, everything is alphabetized.... how can ya possibly go wrong...???

And how can that possibly be considered "broken"...??

 

As long as one can read, and knows the alphabet, one should be ok...

Then the StartScreen (and its keyboard-driven search) should, if anything, be easier - not harder; its triggered by the Windows logo key (present on pretty much any keyboard that is twelve years old or less unless it's from Apple) - if you know the name of the application, you can drill down directly to that individual *twig* entirely via the keyboard, using your mouse ONLY to click on the result.  Fewer mouse movements and a lot faster than relying on the Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball-driven search on a Start menu.  It's the sort of thing that Index Server (and the Indexing service that replaced it) was supposed to bring to the Start menu (and it DID bring it to Explorer and the command line - CHKDSK, among other command-line executables, ties into it).  That is easily THE biggest benefit the StartScreen brings - and touch has nothing to do with it.

[Orange Battery]

Win 8.1 has made some good progress in making the OS functional again, but it is no where near as useful as it used to be, 

 

I know this is a stupid example but today someone at work told me how much she hated her new laptop because it couldn't do the basics.  It turned out that she was a former XP user that had got a Win 8 laptop.  She couldn't reduce her windows to the taskbar by clicking on the open item in the taskbar anymore and she couldn't view her photos without opening a modern UI app which she felt was lacking in any function,

 

I'm not fan of 8, 8.1 is still a pain but omg MS are foolish. 

 

As much as I like to innovate the spreadsheets and apps that I produce at work, I know that you have to keep some of the basics, and then add to them, not just change them for changes sake.

 

MS pay their staff so much more than I get - how do their team not realise this????

 

[+Warwagon MVC]

and causes a less stressful computing experience. 

[moeburn]

Within the "nerd" set, there a few vocal types that don't like change, it's best if we ignore them instead of making them feel like their antiquated views matter when they don't

 

Why is it that if it's good for you, and not good for other people, its because they don't like change?  I love change.  I hate Windows 8 (except for the speed improvements).  I'm the kind of guy that will upgrade my OS not because I need to, or because it's better, but because I love tinkering around with all the new changes they've made, learning how to use the different UI and features, and this is the first time I have ever not enjoyed it.  

 

Windows 8 doesn't just change features, it removes them.  And when you remove things that people have grown to love and use for years, and replace them with things that no one ever asked for or wanted, people are going to be upset.  And if that's all it were, we would just stick with Windows 7, but its faster, and we want the speed improvements without the reduction in the UI features!